you wrote, "i was diluted to believe lance armstrong when he denied doping." that's what you're saying now. but what was it, when you wrote that article, so late, so many people were saying, maybe it's not true, why did you still believe him? >> i really thought he was a hero. to me, the premise i took was this. people were saying he was blood doping, he'd been blood doping throughout all the tour de frances that he won all seven of them. i'm sure that was true, but that sport was so rife with doping, so rife with cheating, so rife with the use of performance enhancers, i said, all right, if that's all they have, then he basically is equaling the playing field. he overcame cancer, which is an incredible story. he starts this foundation, livestrong, which is really, really doing great work on behalf of millions of cancer survivors. so, i -- you know, look, at the end of the day, it was my fault, but i do cringe when i see that cover. it's embarrassing, and i said, i believe in him, he's a hero, and just leave him alone. because it did seem like a witch hunt for